Jack In The Box Add Airs During and "Food Revolution"

Since I do not have a functioning television, I watch most tv shows online, and both in last week's episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution and in the premiere the week before, the below ad aired during the short sponsorship breaks - wedged in between Oliver's preachings on poor eating habits and his rants on over-processed food. I was completely appalled by the irony the first go around when the commercial first popped up on my screen. The irony seemed too blatant, I half expected it to be a joke or at the least a careless mistake. I was completely shocked to see the exact same ad air again next week when viewing the second episode online. Apparently, this was not mistake.



I am dying to know if it aired during the original broadcast - . And I am even more so dying to know who decided to put the spot in for the online viewing? There has to be someone responsible for this decision. Does Jack In The Box know what television shows its online sponsorship supports? Who decides what commercials go with what shows? Didn't someone involved notice the contradiction? This weeks episode is airing while I type this post, as soon as it's available to watch online I will check it out, and be on the look out for the spot.

To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about the spot being used to support Food Revolution. I think it brings up some interesting questions on the ethics of sponsorship. This particular glaring irony seems to underscore the dirty beast of using television for social change. Television is inherently a business, and anything else (art, reform, politics, education) comes secondary. Yet it is a medium consistently embraced by those wishing to share their art, their beliefs, and -by doing so - to change the world. This often makes for strange bedfellows.

At the very least, Food Revolution advocates for a dramatic lessening in one's consumption of fast food like Jack in the Box (At the very most - perhaps that we shouldn't ever eat it at all). So who is the traitor? Jack in the Box for supporting a show that ultimately - if successful - would substantially harm their business, or the idealists (if there are any) behind the show - who rely upon one of the very institutions they wish to diminish? And - most importantly - does it matter? Jack in the Box gets its chance to stake its claim - that they offer tasty fresh and cheap food (and possible lesbian entertainment?). And Jamie gets his chance to stake his - that such lesbian-endorsed food will lead us to an early grave. We, the viewer, get to decide where to cast our vote. I will say that had the commercial aired between any other program,  I wouldn't even have blinked at the commercial. Aired between this program and instantly my mind was a-buzzing. Thinking is always good . . . isn't it?

Just a quick word on the commercial itself. I often forgive things that are funny for their offensive content. But this commercial was not funny, nor original. And thus I have a hard time not being insulted by its poor portrayal of women - bickering enemies who resort to sex appeal to get attention from a man who couldn't care less about what they have to say. Its an uninspired regurgitated joke, its bland and offensive, and its trashy.

Now I know this young blog has been a bit inundated with Jamie-Oliver related posts as-of-late, but he has really been all over the place with his TED prize and all the marketing blitz for his show. As for me, jury is still out on how successful I deem Food Revolution. I am a slow judger. However, I am willing to give it all the benefit of the doubt I can muster, because I really really want this concept to pan out. I work in the television industry, and I am passionate about food reform, and to merge the two is something I have wanted to do ever since I picked up a camera myself.